although that means that the first and last half-hours (-ish), which are also not the most productive, become a much higher proportion of the day.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Is 2 days off a week an unacceptable aspiration in the modern railway or otherwise world ?
- Thread starter father_jack
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
irish_rail
On Moderation
Yes , staff should probably expect to work over 7 days. And that is why Aslef are campaigning for a 7 day week on the railway, with Sunday brought into the working week. That way, the days of mass cancellations on a Sunday will be a thing of the past and passengers will be able to plan their trips with ease. However Dft and Co refuse this, preferring instead to rely on overtime. If they get their way it will be compulsory overtime. Its the worst of all worlds. Staff will just not show up for work. What can be done? Ring up the night before, "sorry I'm fatigued, so won't be able to work that overtime shift tomorrow". It goes on already where Sundays are committed. You cannot discipline someone who won't work overtime as they are fatigued!
Dave W
Member
Intrigued by this - are you in a front line role or an operational department? The idea of policy teams being asked to regularly work a Saturday is mind boggling to me.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
This is pretty much spot on.
The railways’ issue now is that endemic overtime is cheaper for the employer than appropriate recruitment, so they keep up with the endemic overtime. The “modernisation” the railways now seems to want is to crystallise that overtime and make it mandatory, rather than invest in appropriate recruitment. They seem to want to “bring Sunday into the working week” by adding it in addition to the existing week.
As for companies who insist on unpaid overtime, my experience is that the wages they pay are rarely commensurate with the additional hours and responsibilities. Expected unpaid overtime should be a huge red flag.
Where is the time off in that?
I broadly agree (although I do think there are special hours for fatigue purposes) however you have to remember that for a lot of staff it effectively wasn't/isn't a 7 day railway when they joined. Committed Sundays are non pensionable, do not qualify for sick pay and depending on agreements can be cancelled with a certain amount of notice which means no Sunday for the employee, whether they had factored in the pay or not. The quid pro quo where I am is that we do not have to work them in certain circumstances and we are free to find our own cover if we wish. It is fair that a change to the above is recognised as a change and recompensed in some way, financially or otherwise. The recompense for the company comes in improved performance and a reduction in workload for train crew management who no longer have to try and resource Sundays each week.
As for a 40 hour week, as we understand more about sleep, fatigue, long term health and shift work I do honestly struggle to understand people who deem shift work the equal to a standard hours contract. It is incredibly fatiguing to get up at 1am to go to work, and to do a safety critical job on top of that loads some extra pressure on. I would prefer to see a lot more work done on shift patterns and fatigue and some far sightedness used to recognise that something less than 100% productivity (in the sense of extracting every drop from diagrams and train crew) now might actually lead to longer productivity overall in terms of reduced sickness, incidents and burn out. I don't think 40 hour weeks should be the goal.
Your point about different contract types is an interesting one. I don't theoretically object but have yet to see it done on the railway without some detriment in one way or another. I think one difficulty there is timetable changes = diagram changes and sometimes radical ones, which doesn't always lend itself to guaranteeing people certain hours or set ups long term.
Bantamzen
Established Member
The department is front line facing, although my role is in data engineering so its very rare that I get called to work as usual on a Saturday but it is in my contract that I could. This was part of a previous pay "deal" which we could have opted out of but for a smaller rise (and the rise we got with the deal was already small).
Sly Old Fox
Member
Yeah, exactly this. Committed Sundays just means staff won’t come in, as happens week in week out already. You give staff no way of booking a day off, and they just won’t bother turning up, or phone sick Saturday night and resume Sunday night. There’s no comeback because it’s overtime and not paid if not worked, so you can’t be noted as sick because you haven’t been paid.
Sundays need adding in to the working week properly, as is the case at Southeastern, South Western Railway, East Midlands and I’m sure some others (and soon to be TfW too by the sounds of things). Everybody knows where they stand, and the TOCs aren’t relying on overtime (enforced or not) to run a service. It’s the only proper way forward.
Greenheart
Member
Every morning or afternoon depending on when your shift is.. But no seriously I suspect that as a society we could go all round the houses with various options of compressed hours, non core hours etc and eventually we'll come back to mostly working the same 7-8 hours 5 days a week.
But that isn’t what has happened historically. TOCs have insisted on keeping Sundays outside the working week. Why should existing staff be punished because the railway now wants to change an arrangement that has suited them.
That is part of the reason for the current dispute - the suggestion that entire weeks will be on the roster where it isn’t known what days or what start/finish times will be available.
That isn’t generally how it works (by necessity). It’s basically always going to be one roster which everyone does their fair share of, with people then making their own arrangements via swaps, annual leave requests etc. (outside of narrow exceptions such as accommodated hours, which already cause issues and a fair bit of resentment).
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
This is mostly the mantra of the car driver who thinks it is OK to do London to the Highlands in one go overnight with only a couple of toilet breaks, usually just before they cause a pile-up on the M6.
It would be better put as "there are things that cause fatigue in addition to working excessive overtime", not "I can get away with it and therefore I should", which is the undertone of your sentence. There should be a baseline in all industries of not working more than 5 x 8 hour shifts a week (i.e. a 40 hour week), and not working more than an 8 hour day*, other than in extreme dire circumstances. I sit at a desk all day and don't perform well if I work significantly longer days than this, and feel very much unrested if I have to (very rarely) work a weekend.
Not as applicable to the railway, but I'd similarly insist people took an hour for lunch and left their desks to do so if I was in charge of an office based company - it makes so much of a difference to get a true break.
* I have a huge problem with being treated by medical staff on 12 hour shifts. That is too long for anyone and they WILL be tired towards the end of it.
Last edited:
Sly Old Fox
Member
It is very unusual as a train driver to work fewer than eight hours in a day. The vast majority of shifts are between 8.45 and 9.15 in my experience. I don’t think that’ll change anytime soon.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There aren't many things that would make me seriously consider striking, but anything involving increased hours or forced rest day working are right up there. (I've said with regard to the current strikes, and remain of that view, that the clause about allowing rest days to be changed at the last minute is a red line for me and I would under no circumstances vote to cease striking until that is removed).
Progress is in the other direction, i.e. working fewer hours with more productivity, not working longer hours.
8-9 is a bit moot (though if that's true I do think the railway should look to a reduction, and I guess most won't be actually driving trains for the whole period and as such it's more like a split shift but being paid for the split). 12 is dangerous.
mike57
Established Member
I dont think companies can 'insist' on unpaid overtime, Your hours of work should be defined in your contract of employment. However they may make your life unpleasant if you refuse to work beyond your contracted hours and its probably best to part company as there will only be one winner and that will not be you.
The current situation on the railways just seems to be a complete mess, with none of the participants being blameless. My own recipe would be to get to a situation similar to that in other industries, where you have a rolling 7 day shift pattern where you work an average of say 40 hours per week with at least 8 rest days in any 28 day period. Overtime is voluntary and is deployed where external events create a problem. Ideally you then need a way of managing those who want more overtime. Training and recruitments need to reflect the requirements to maintain a headcount.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Agreed, this is basically a decent standard for any industry.
Topological
Established Member
This all makes me wonder what the objections are.
IF the inclusion of Sunday in the working week is not of itself linked to salary increases then it seems a no brainer to bring Sunday in because there will be savings on overtime rates. All I can think of is that you need more employees and that means more training costs and associated employer side taxes.
I work in an industry with very few fixed hours but large incentives to work a lot. We have the potential to be contacted across huge time ranges because of international collaboration etc. and can respond if we want to or just slow things down by waiting for UK work time. That is the complete opposite really so I am not saying one way or another about what I would do in the rail workers position.
I get that some days need more staff than others, but that sounds like more of a rota design issue than anything else. It is the same as there being more trains on certain routes at 05:00 than there are on others.
As a normal it would be good to really understand why Sunday is not in the working week.
IF the inclusion of Sunday in the working week is not of itself linked to salary increases then it seems a no brainer to bring Sunday in because there will be savings on overtime rates. All I can think of is that you need more employees and that means more training costs and associated employer side taxes.
I work in an industry with very few fixed hours but large incentives to work a lot. We have the potential to be contacted across huge time ranges because of international collaboration etc. and can respond if we want to or just slow things down by waiting for UK work time. That is the complete opposite really so I am not saying one way or another about what I would do in the rail workers position.
I get that some days need more staff than others, but that sounds like more of a rota design issue than anything else. It is the same as there being more trains on certain routes at 05:00 than there are on others.
As a normal it would be good to really understand why Sunday is not in the working week.
Surely in a railway context with rosters you have to average this out for how many days you get across over X weeks?
Whilst it doesn’t always look like it, I’ve found many roles tend to have > 2.0 days/week on average.
The Sunday question is separate to this because it’s not “officially counted” in some places or some sneaky way of doing it, which muddies the water. Having it within the working week normally means a roster has to be redesigned. There has to be reasonable rest days or it fails the fatigue matrix test.
Whilst it doesn’t always look like it, I’ve found many roles tend to have > 2.0 days/week on average.
The Sunday question is separate to this because it’s not “officially counted” in some places or some sneaky way of doing it, which muddies the water. Having it within the working week normally means a roster has to be redesigned. There has to be reasonable rest days or it fails the fatigue matrix test.
Surreytraveller
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,810
The opening post assumes everyone does a five-day week with Sundays on top.
Although for those with fewer days a week, they will have longer working days.
You also get some shift patterns where you might work 10 days on the trot, and a week of rest days elsewhere in the roster.
Personally, I think Sundays should be part of the working week. But its cheaper for the railway to pay overtime than employ a proper number of staff.
In addition, when the opening post states that overtime is only paid at 100%, this will be because years ago, contracts were altered to increase basic salary, but pay overtime at that basic rate. Makes it easier for the accountants, and makes it easier for staff to apply for mortgages etc
In theory, the average should balance out that everyone gets paid the same and the company pays out the same, but staff who didn't work overtime got a massive payrise, and those who worked loads of overtime ended up taking home less.
Although for those with fewer days a week, they will have longer working days.
You also get some shift patterns where you might work 10 days on the trot, and a week of rest days elsewhere in the roster.
Personally, I think Sundays should be part of the working week. But its cheaper for the railway to pay overtime than employ a proper number of staff.
In addition, when the opening post states that overtime is only paid at 100%, this will be because years ago, contracts were altered to increase basic salary, but pay overtime at that basic rate. Makes it easier for the accountants, and makes it easier for staff to apply for mortgages etc
In theory, the average should balance out that everyone gets paid the same and the company pays out the same, but staff who didn't work overtime got a massive payrise, and those who worked loads of overtime ended up taking home less.
The suggestion isn’t to bring Sundays inside the week (because this would require a one off payment to those who agree to it, and would require a higher establishment thus costing more). It’s to bring it in as enforced overtime where it isn’t already inside the week.
Who mentioned car drivers?
So fatigue not black and white then. Are you going to regulate what people can and can’t do in their own time as well? The undertone of my sentence is I know what fatigues me more than you or anyone else therefore having a arbitrary limit is rather well, arbitrary.
12LDA28C
Established Member
Many TOCs have or had committed Sundays as part of the drivers' roster, what should be done is Sundays brought into the working week which would mean an extra Rest Day given in the week is a Sunday is worked. That means there would be no change to a driver's contracted hours per week.
Just because you would choose not to do so does not mean those who wish to work an occasional Rest Day should be prevented from doing so. What's wrong with having for example a rostered 6-day weekend and working a Rest Day at the start and end of it? You still get 4 days off, or is that not long enough 'proper rest', in your opinion?
Last edited:
Yes it is personal but at the same time you can’t tailor the limit for every individual for fairness reasons and it would be impossible to build a roster otherwise.
Alanko
Member
I would look for another job. My hours and expected work pattern are written into my contract, so adding an additional day per week would be a significant change.
I wouldn't mind going down to a four day week, to be honest. Haven't we been trying to build a more comfortable, convenient existence for ourselves, rather than working ever harder for thinner wages?
Lockdown and working-from-home practices made it quite apparent that an older generation of the workforce in my organisation are hardwired to put on a tie and spend a couple of hours grinding through traffic; lunch out a Tupperware; cajoling colleagues into grim after-work pints on Friday, etc.
The DfT proposal is for Sundays to be "committed overtime". So yes, it means working an extra day on some weeks without a different rest day in lieu.
Teaching contracts have stipulations that they must work "reasonable" unpaid overtime. Naturally "reasonable" is not defined.
But the government isn't bringing Sundays inside the week. That would result in a different rest day in lieu as you say (either a true four day week with a different day off that week, or a week of rest days at some point in the roster). No, the proposal is that Sundays are "committed" or compulsory overtime. That does have the effect of making you work an extra day per week.
12LDA28C
Established Member
That's not what @Bletchleyite said though - he said safety critical staff should not be allowed to work Rest Days which is rather different to working 6 days a week, in many cases.
That’s a very negative way of looking at it. Spending your entire day staring into a computer screen and not interacting with anybody in the flesh isn’t natural or normal for a social species.
It also doesn’t necessarily lead to better work outcomes. Surprise surprise businesses are catching onto this; working from home is receding and people are increasingly being expected to go back to the office.
Topological
Established Member
Thank you, it helps make it clearer.
On the one hand if you are saying work 4 days, but now one of those days in Sunday then I, as a normal, cannot see why that needs payments. The discussions above suggest that there has been adjustments made at certain TOCs that would be invalidated by just treating Sunday like any other day. I can see that has complicated things somewhat.
On the other hand, if it is simply because Sunday is Sunday and everyones salary would have to go up to have Sunday treated like any other day then I can see why there is reluctance on the government side.
Whilst I like the idea that Sunday is a special day, that ship sailed a long time ago for most.
12LDA28C
Established Member
Unfortunately for many years TOCs have preferred to employ fewer drivers than required and rely on RDW and overtime because that's cheaper than employing more full-time staff. I can't see that changing anytime soon.
How would you suggest a train driver works a split shift, given Hidden recommendations? Ain't gonna happen.
Last edited:
Because the railway industry has recruited people onto contracts specifically stating that Sundays are not part of the working week, because it suited them to do so. Now the government wants to muscle in and change that, largely for political reasons, to the detriment of the staff.
Note that many TOCs (when free from interference) have negotiated to bring Sundays inside the week.
Relatively few people work on Sundays, period. Even fewer do the shifts that traincrew are expected to the rest of the week, hence why many value having one day off they can depend on.
There’s also a tendency for people to complain (without irony) about people not being forced to work when it interferes with them enjoying their own free time!
Alanko
Member
Not a negative way of looking at it. I shut down my laptop and I'm out in the garden two minutes later. That is a win for me. Everybody in my team aged 20-40 (or thereabouts) is keen to minimise office time and we are all still delivering big chunks of work.
80% of my time in an office would be spent staring at a screen.
- Status